Design of Augmented Reality for Collaboration
Susanna Nilsson, Björn Johansson and Arne Jönsson
The self-archived postprint version of this journal article is available at Linköping
University Institutional Repository (DiVA):
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-43712
N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original publication.
Nilsson, S., Johansson, B., Jönsson, A., (2008), Design of Augmented Reality for Collaboration,
Proceedings of The 7th ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry, VRCAI 2008. https://doi.org/10.1145/1477862.1477920
Original publication available at:
https://doi.org/10.1145/1477862.1477920
Copyright: ACM
http://www.acm.org/
© ACM 2008. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your
personal use. Not for redistribution.
Design of Augmented Reality for Collaboration
Susanna Nilsson∗
Link¨oping University, Sweden Bj¨orn Johansson †
Saab Security, Sweden. Arne J¨onsson
‡
Santa Anna IT Research Institute AB
Abstract
Augmented Reality has potential to support collaboration in complex situations, such as command and control. Unfor-tunately there are few studies on how such systems should be designed to facilitate cooperation between actors from different organisations and at the same time support indi-vidual actors needs. This poster presents an iterative design process of an Augmented Reality system for a collaborative task.
Keywords: Human-centered design, collaborative work, Augmented Reality
1
Introduction
In complex collaborative situations, such as command and control in crisis management, actors from different domains and organisations must work together [Cross and Bopping 1998]. However, collaborative work across organisational borders is not simple and confusion emerging from differ-ences in terminology is not rare. We believe that Augmented Reality (AR) is especially suitable to support collaboration between actors from different organisations. AR allows for independence and individuality [Billinghurst and Kato 2002] meaning that each actor can independently have data tai-lored to her needs in various situations. AR also supports cooperation [Billinghurst and Kato 2002] as the actors can see each other and cooperate in a natural way. This poster presents an iterative design of a multi-user AR application, where AR is used to aid cross-cultural collaboration. The system is intended to support collaborative work between representatives from police, rescue services and military per-sonnel, working jointly with the goal of coordinating work in a crisis situation.
2
Background and related work
AR research has to a large extent been focused on single user applications with different purposes, such as applica-tions that provide the user with instrucapplica-tions. Billinghurst & Kato [2002] presented a vision of shared space using AR technology and since then several papers have illustrated different ideas of merging AR with collaborative computing
∗e-mail: susni@ida.liu.se
†e-mail:bjorn.j.e.johansson@combitech.se ‡e-mail:arnjo@ida.liu.se
approaches. Even though AR systems are designed differ-ently with different applications and tasks in focus the meth-ods used to evaluate them are similar and mainly based on usability methods used for more traditional graphical user interfaces, sometimes in combination with usability for VR applications [Tr¨askb¨ack 2004; Nilsson and Johansson 2006; D¨unser et al. 2006]. This approach has some complications since it is not based on the experiences from actual AR sys-tems users in actual contexts.
3
Method
We have adapted an iterative design approach where realis-tic exercises are combined with focus groups in an effort to catch both user behaviour and opinions. The design study included a pre-design phase where field experts from three different organisations (fire and rescue services, police de-partment and the helicopter platoon in the local area) took part in a brainstorming session to establish the parameters of the AR system. This brainstorming session was used to define the components of the software interface and based on an analysis of the brainstorming session a first design was implemented.
4
The first design
In this section we describe the first AR system prototype as well as the setting of the study and the results of the eval-uation. Observations, focus groups and questionnaires were the main tools for collecting data. The task for the partici-pants was to collaborate in responding to a forest fire. The AR system was used as a tool for them to see and manipu-late their resources and as a way to have an overall view of the situation, while cooperating over a digital map.
4.1 System description
The AR-system used hand-held devices that are easier to remove than head mounted displays. We used a digital map were participants had personal, individual views, allowing them to see an organisation specific map and the symbols they normally use. In this way each actor has her own infor-mation mapping to the AR markers on the map to facilitate independence and individuality. Hand pointing on the digi-tal map was not possible and instead an interaction device to point digitally was used.
4.2 Results
The first evaluation revealed a number of issues regarding the design of the system as well as the scenario used. In general, the participants were positive to the AR system. What they appreciated most was the easy overview of what was going on, being able to see all resources placed on the map facilitates the joint task. The design of the AR system as a handheld device did not receive a positive response and the observations clearly illustrated this point. Despite this the participants thought it was easy to use and that it was quick to learn.
5
The second design
The follow-up study was conducted as a focus group where the participants were asked to reflect on their experience in the first study. Then the redesigned system was presented and the participants were observed using it to complete sim-ple tasks from the scenario in the prevoius study. After this the focus group discussion continued with reflection on the new design.
5.1 System description – the new design
The handheld display was replaced with a head mounted display allowing freedom of movement, Figure 1. The in-teraction device was also considerably redesigned and in the new AR system the user can easily manipulate objects us-ing only one hand as opposed to usus-ing both in the previous prototype, see insert in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The redesigned display and interaction device,
which allows the user to choose a virtual object and place it on the digital map.
Another improvement made was a simplified interaction in where the user can point at things in the digital map, see Figure 2.
Figure 2: Deictic pointing in a digital map as seen through
the head mounted display of the re-designed AR system.
5.2 Results
The head mounted display was a big improvement and al-lowed the users to move around and interact more freely.
The new interaction device was also appreciated and the participants found it very easy to use and quick to learn. The added possibility to see hand gestures such as point-ing, on the digital map has simplified the interaction con-siderably and also results in a more natural interaction and better communication between the participants. The partic-ipants did not only appreciate the new design, it also gave them ideas on how to further use the AR system and see the potential of future applications, such as in distributed collaborative tasks.
6
Discussion and implications
We have presented an iterative design process of AR devices for collaboration. The AR system was developed in several steps in studies with real users, in near real settings. As a result of our investigations the design of the AR system was greatly improved during the iterations and we are now ready to conduct full scale studies of the use of AR for collaboration in crisis management. Working iteratively with re-design and evaluation, involving real users is invaluable. Making only one major evaluation, as often is the case in AR studies, obscures both flaws and opportunities with new technology. The design described in this paper is not yet final, and the real challenge sets in during the next phase – when our AR system is to be tested in an extensive naturalistic study with participants from the field.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by FMV, Technology for Sweden’s Security. We are indebted to XMReality for developing the system used in the studies and to Fredrik K¨ohler who as-sisted in the studies, and of course to our participants who volunteered their time and effort to this project.
References
Billinghurst, M., and Kato, H. 2002. Collaborative augmented reality. Communications of the ACM 45, 7 (July), 64–70.
Cross, M., and Bopping, C. 1998. Collaborative planning processes in command and control. In Fourth
Interna-tional in Command and Control Research and Technology,
DoD CCRP.
D¨unser, A., Steinb¨ugl, K., Kaufmann, H., and Gl¨uck, J. 2006. Virtual and augmented reality as spatial ability training tools. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM
SIGCHI New Zealand Chapter’s International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design Centered HCI, 2006, Christchurch, New Zealand, July 6-7, 2006, ACM,
M. Billinghurst, Ed., vol. 158 of ACM International
Con-ference Proceeding Series, 125–132.
Nilsson, S., and Johansson, B. 2006. A cognitive systems engineering perspective on the design of mixed reality sys-tems. In ECCE ’06: Proceedings of the 13th Eurpoean
con-ference on Cognitive ergonomics, ACM, New York, NY,
USA, 154–161.
Tr¨askb¨ack, M. 2004. Toward a usable mixed reality au-thoring tool. In VL/HCC, IEEE Computer Society, 160– 162.
